Meeting Flares When Additional Tax Levy is Considered by Richfield School Board

Debate flared up between members Monday night when a referendum, which would ask voters to approve an increased operating levy for Richfield Public Schools, was discussed at the board’s regular meeting.

While Richfield Public Schools already use an operating levy–essentially an additional tax approved by voters–to supplement other revenue sources, the school board is considering asking voters to increase that levy at the polls in November 2011. 

School officials informed the board and those in attendance that, given flat state funding levels, without an additional revenue source, Richfield Public Schools are looking at dramatic cutbacks over the next several years. The operating levy currently in effect does not expire until the end of the 2012-13 school year, but it appears likely that in August the school board will vote to place a referendum on November’s ballot. With current funding levels, the district estimates its budget will be reduced by an estimated $2 million in 2012-2013.

While the board discussed simply extending the current levy at its present level, a private polling company hired by the district last year found that a majority of likely Richfield voters would support the increased levy amount. That poll found that voters would likely vote yes on an amount as high as $119 for the average Richfield home, a figure several school board members took issue with.

“I’m a firm believer that the community needs the money,” said Board Member Todd Nollenberger when voicing his support.

Board Member Tom Flood, while supportive of an overall increase, wasn’t sure the board should be asking voters to approve the $119 figure during tough economic times.

“I think the district always needs the money,” Flood said as he proposed that the board consider a figure more in the range of $50 to $60. “Just because we can do it doesn’t mean we should.”

Board Member Sandy Belkengren was even more skeptical of the increased levy, telling fellow board members that her neighbors had already informed her they thought any increase was unaffordable right now. She ultimately said she would vote to put the referendum before voters however.

Superintendent Bob Slotterback and other board members were concerned that if the resolution to put the referendum before Richfield voters was not approved by the school board unanimously, it was unlikely to pass.

In summing up the various positions of the board, Board Chair Peter Toensing said the need for the increased levy was reflective of a change in how schools in Minnesota are funded; both he and Slotterback attributed it to a move in Minnesota whereby the tax burden has shifted from the state to local taxpayers.

“In many ways this is where the rubber meets the road in terms of the community deciding what’s important,” Toensing said.

Slotterback reported that staff in the district had done projections on the cutbacks that would be needed should the increased levy go unapproved while state funding also remains static. The projected $2 million shortfall would inevitably mean teacher layoffs, as the district has already reduced operating expenses in virtually every other arena to near minimums.

With teacher layoffs, classrooms in the district would, on average, need to house between eight and 10 more students. Richfield classrooms currently average between 26 and 29.5 students for K-5 classrooms, with class sizes ranging from the mid- to upper-30s for high school.

Slotterback also informed the board that athletic programs, which currently account for approximately $900,000 of the district’s budget, would also take a hit if the budget were reduced.

As a result of the lively discussion, the board voted to hold a special session Aug. 8 at 7 p.m. to discuss and finalize language it hopes to place on ballots in November. Cities have until Aug. 26 to approve referendums for the Nov. 2011 ballot. The school board will vote on the increased operating levy at their next regular meeting, scheduled for Aug. 15 at 7 p.m.